This month, the Caru Ventures blog is being issued under a new banner. As I mentioned at the start of the year, I am working with a number of partners on the development of a new type of venture capital fund. I’m delighted to be able to introduce to you this new organization, Northface Ventures. The project is still in the validation phase but is gaining significant support from potential partners both corporate and institutional. I hope to share more details over the coming months.

I’ve been considering for the last week a range of topics on which to share some thoughts following a welcome summer break. Indeed, I was looking to move away from the “big corporate” dynamics that have dominated most of these posts this year to date. However, yesterday’s news of Google’s agreed offer for Motorola blew all that out of the water. What a game changer, from way out of left field!In summary, what Google has acquired is:

The worlds eighth largest manufacturer of mobile handsets and tablets.

The worlds second largest TV Set Top Box manufacturer

As others have been quick to point out, the patent portfolio will give Google a useful armoury with which to defend the Android platform and the Open Handset Alliance (OHA) against patent infringement suits by Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others. It is also the main reason why, in public at least, many of Google’s Android partners have welcomed the deal.

Acquisition of the handset division gives Google ownership of arguably one of the leading Android hardware design and manufacturing teams. Both Droid and Xoom have been well received by the market, and have been a major reason for the Motorola turnaround over the last twelve months. Limitations in distribution reach appear to be the main constraint on the success of those devices, something Google’s marketing and financial muscle could quickly help address.

The acquisition also gives Google another option for “fixing’ Google TV. The platform has been struggling to take off, in part because the Google TV experience has been less well received than hoped, in part because broadcasters have withheld rights to stream content through Google TV boxes. That Motorola may now switch focus to Google TV may not please Motorola’s biggest STB customer, Comcast, (and that is a big risk). Nor may it have content owners flocking to its door. However, again by bringing hardware and software design under one roof, it does provide an excellent in-house platform to get this product off the ground and to go on and build a truly convergent experience across core device types - TV’s, tablets, and mobiles.

I share one thing in common with Stephen Elop. We are both big believers in vertically controlled device ecosystems offering seamless experiences across multiple device types. As Elop said at the Open Mobile Summit in June, “Future competition will be between ecosystems, not between manufacturers of individual devices”.

The key question is whether those ecosystems can be created by independent manufacturers and software vendors working in concert or whether bringing software and hardware under one roof is essential for success.

In-house control of both hardware and software has certainly been a key element of Apple’s recent success, a strategy that has seen Apple double in value over the last two years while Google (and Microsoft) shares have tracked sideways within a defined range. Google’s recent introduction of anti-fragmentation clauses in its Android licences and its delay in releasing source code for Honeycomb both suggest that Google realizes the need to gain greater control over the user experience it offers across multiple devices.

If you share the “one-roof” view, then this transaction is a logical next step. It is worth noting that the financials and shape of the combined entity (Revenues of $41bn, margins of 25%, strong in-house hardware and software design teams) look very close to that of Apple at the end of 2009.

If instead you are a believer in open software platforms independent of hardware manufacturing, then you will expect to see Google sell off the manufacturing arms of Motorola while retaining the patent portfolio with which it can defend the Android community. Quite what value can be realized from a manufacturing design house without IP, is not clear to me.

In reality, the transaction is probably Google seeking to defend the Android ecosystem while hedging its bets on verticalisation. OEMs that use Android have few options over the next 12-24 months other than to continue product development around Android while they look to develop alternatives. Hence, the Open Handset Alliance community will probably remain intact for that period at least.

In the meantime, Motorola have that period of time to produce a set of devices across mobile, tablets and TVs that offer real competition to Apple. In the same window Google must also figure out if they can reach an accommodation with the major rights holders to allow their content onto Google TV. If Googorola succeeds in both of these areas, the combined entity is in play. If it fails, Google will sell the manufacturing units, and look to keep its OHA partners on board.

So last month it was “Nokiasoft”, this month its “Microskpe” .... or should it be “Mickiaskype”??? The names may be convoluted, but the underlying theme of “Connecting Everything” is a very real goal. The question is how far do we as consumers want companies to go in trying to make TV, social, voice, and the myriad of other services we use easy and seamless to access across multiple devices? As regular readers of this blog know, it’s a question I’ve been pondering over for some time – not just how far should companies go but how far can they go, particularly the consumer giants that are driving the current wave of convergence. On June 8th and 9th, the Open Mobile Summit, produced by my good friend Robin Batt, will take place again in London (www.openmobilesummit.com). This year’s theme appropriately is “Connecting Everything”, and the day 1 keynote is Stephen Elop, CEO of Nokia. I, like many, am keen to hear his views on how Nokia and Microsoft plan to execute their convergence strategy, and in particular where Skype fits into this picture.

The $8.5bn spent by Microsoft on Skype is a pretty major statement of the value Microsoft sees in a 170million user ecosystem as the core of its future cross device communications strategy. The deal has sent media hacks into a frenzy again, variously describing it as inspired, overpriced, and fraught with execution risk.

For once I have to agree with the general tone of most of the commentary. The deal is in principle a great fillip to Microsoft and Nokia's ambitions to be a major cross platform global force. It provides them with both a software platform, and crucially a sizeable network of users around which to build tomorrow's mobile voice services. While the marginal cost of carrying voice over today’s mobile networks is considerably lower than the retail price, an installed base of handsets designed to deliver voice only over circuit switched networks sustains high voice margins for mobile operators. However, as we move to 4G LTE networks, structural reasons to keep voice separate from other forms of data will disappear. At some point therefore, a seamlessly integrated VoIP client and all inclusive unlimited voice minutes at a flat monthly rate becomes inevitable. At that point, Skype's service and user community should be a key asset for a “Mickiaskpe” to exploit.Skype has also built a very useful foothold in internet TV, a key target for Microsoft and it's partners. Again, potential exists to build out rapidly from this substantial beachhead in the landgrab that is the convergent media space.Much has been said regarding Microsoft overpaying for Skype, and the numbers surrounding the deal make that position an easy one to argue. However, the truth is we will only know some years down the line whether the deal was worth the money or not. Mark Volpi, ex CSO at Cisco, recently made the point on Gigaom that the valuation of a deal of this type is less important than the option value. As any VC or M&A exec will tell you, 2 in 10 acquisitions will succeed big. When they do the initial valuation price is inconsequential. As ever, it will be Microsoft and Nokia’s ability to execute that will be key to value creation. Successful execution will mean integration of the Sype community with Windows Live and Hotmail followed by consistent and rapid deployment across mobile, tablet and TV platforms. Hence, Stephen Elop’s view on Skype and the speed with which the Skype client will be seamlessly integrated into Windows Phone 7 and on into Nokia handsets will be a interesting pointer to the likelihood of the deal being a success.

Google’ quarterly earnings call last week highlighted the momentum Android, Google’s mobile phone OS, has established in the market. The company reported that it was now seeing 350,000 new activations a day, a run rate of 127 million units a year or 10% of global mobile shipments . This is quite a milestone to have achieved two and a half years after the launch of the first Android phone, the G1. One of the reasons for Android’s success is the speed of innovation the team have delivered. Android was launched in response to the perceived slow pace of evolution in a mobile software platform market controlled by a few dominant handset OEMs. Since the introduction of the first public release of Android in February 2009, Google has released ten versions of the platform. The latest in February this year included features such as support for gyroscopes and Near Field Communications, a core technology for contactless payments systems.

February also saw the release of the first version of Android to explicitly support tablets. With Android application support for Google TV also slated for later this year, Google will soon have a platform that is truly cross-device, something only Apple’s iOS has been able to claim to date.

Unlike iOS, Android is, of course, a platform on which companies other than the platform maker builds devices. A feature that has attracted OEMs such as Samsung and Sony Ericsson to use Android is that they are able to take an Android release and develop their own custom variations of the platform. Motorola and LG for example have both build new custom UI’s to provide a distinct and differentiated experience for users.

It is this rich ecosystem of software innovation from multiple parties that is arguably a key factor behind Android’s success.

However, the range of different versions of Android that results from this approach creates problems for software developers and content companies who are trying to build applications and services that run on Android devices. Depending on which features of Android an app uses, developers frequently need to create different versions of their content to cover multiple versions of the platform on which they want the app to run.

This platform fragmentation increases the cost and complexity for developers and high profile players such as Rovi, makers of Angry Birds, and Netflix (http://bit.ly/gSCoyQ ) have both struggled recently to ensure their apps are available on all mobile phones. With the prospect of tablets and TV apps increasing fragmentation further, the risk is that those costs could potentially spiral out of control.

In a sign that Google is looking to address the fragmentation issue, Business Week recently reported (http://buswk.co/g7TUZi) that Google is starting to enforce “anti-fragmentation” clauses in its licences, constraining OEMs from creating their own versions of Android. Going forward, it may well be the case that OEMs would be licenced to ship only those versions of Android created by Google.

This move towards a homogeneous, centrally controlled platform would be good news for developers struggling with the economics of application creation, particularly those that seek to develop apps over tablets and connected TVs as well phones. However, it would also be bad news for OEMs. The opportunity for them to innovate and differentiate will diminish over time. Instead, product feature sets would increasingly be dependent on Google’s internal or community sourced innovation programs. According to Business Week, Google’s moves to control platform specifications have already attracted the interest of the US Justice Department. Google have already been referred to anti-trust authorities in South Korea for allegedly blocking OEMs from incorporating custom third party search features in Android (http://bit.ly/f4njgL ).

Nevertheless, this structural move towards cross-functional software platforms seems inevitable. Consumers clearly want services that run seamlessly across multiple devices types. Simplicity of operation is the key. And that only comes with homogenous, cross-device software platforms.

The key question for the consumer electronics industry – and indeed for Google itself - is whether players other than Google can step up and provide competitive platforms on which those products would be built?

The industry needs healthy, balanced competition between a number of equals, not an Android army of occupation dictating to the rest of the industry what features sets will be incorporated in the platform and when.

As I commented in my blog a couple of months ago (http://bit.ly/gSkgH4), the Microsoft/Nokia tie up would seem to be an attempt by those two organisations to create a viable competitor to Android. However, both Nokia mobiles based on Windows Phone 7 and the new tablet versions of Windows are at least twelve months away.

As yet, the few other organisations have shown any signs that they are in a position to offer a comprehensive platform. Samsung has taken steps to introduce a more homogeneous device strategy, backing the Galaxy product series as the pillar of a multi-device platform strategy. But that device is an Android device, and the organisation appears some way off from turning Bada into a viable cross device software platform extending to both tablets and TVs. RIM and HP, both with technically proficient mobile platforms, have yet to gain market traction.

Many players believe the solution lies in using the capabilities of HTML5 to produce a cross-device execution environments within a browser. Whether the W3C can deliver a standard sufficiently robust to meet the needs of both manufacturers for differentiation and the content industry for homogeneity remains a very big question.

On June 8th this year, I’ll be chairing a panel session on multiscreen media experiences at the Open Mobile Summit in London (www.openmobilesummit.com). With the events theme being “Connecting Everything”, one of my key questions to that group will be how quickly they expect to be able to create cross-platform experiences for users beyond the Apple environment, and who they expect the key technology partners to be to deliver those experiences.

With Stephen Elop, the Nokia CEO, also delivering the keynote address at the event, it is the ideal occasion to ask how he sees Nokia supporting cross-device consumer demand going forward and whether Nokia/Microsoft, Apple, and Google really will be the only cross platform games in town.

If you are coming to the Open Mobile Summit, use the DISCOUNT CODE: CARU before April 21st for an extra reduction on the list price.

It takes only a glance at any industry blog or trade magazine to realize that connected TV is the key industry talking point in 2011. With column feet of comment and analysis, and manufacturers falling over themselves to offer any sort of proposition with the “Internet TV” label, it’s easy to dismiss this trend as hype. How can the simple act of changing a one-way broadcast TV service into a bi-directional interaction alter the nature of a multibillion dollar industry that’s been the bedrock of home entertainment for nigh on 60 years?

Recently, I visited my friends at Redshift Strategy, where CEO Stephen Taylor has assembled a demonstration suite of connected TV products. Most of these products have still to launch in Europe, and so, like many who have crossed Stephen’s door in the last few weeks, it was my first opportunity to experience the joys of Logitech Revue, (their current Google TV offering), Roku, Vudu, Samsung’s Internet@TV, and a range of other similar offerings. An hour later we were still pouring over the structure and nuances of the first product we looked at, Logitech’s Google TV box.

After the struggle at CES with Google pulling products from the show at the last minute, I was expecting to see a poorly implemented mash up of a PC screen on a TV with few coherent and compelling services. Logitech’s product is still rough around edges, but it demonstrates clearly why every organisation in the industry needs to sit up and take notice of connected TV.

Google TV is an overlay box, which means it takes as an input the output from a standard cable, satellite or DTT service and renders its own menus, search screen and apps on top of that service.

The seamless manner in which linear and internet worlds were integrated on the one screen was extremely compelling. Switching between standard TV (in this case Sky HD) and the internet TV menu is simple and slick. With linear TV front and center you are unaware that Revue is sitting underneath it. At the press of a button, the entire EPG - including picture in picture of the channel you have selected – is itself reduced to a picture in picture. You are then presented with an intuitive, iPhone style internet apps menu with the opening page consisting of a search option plus eight apps. Search on any term – film or series title, actors name, producer – and you are presented with choices from across both linear TV and online apps providers such as HBO, New York Times, or YouTube. One click and you jump straight to the chosen content or application. Add in the use of a mobile or tablet as an integrated, synchronised companion screen (something that’s still to come for Logictech), and searching becomes even easier. The companion screen will also allow multiple viewers in the one room to personalize that viewing experience, or engage with other viewers or program makers on Twitter or Facebook.

These capabilities will undoubtedly enrich the experience for users, providing greater choice and easier access to a wider range of content. The ability to seamlessly access popular internet services will also be welcomed.

For broadcasters and program makers, direct access to real time audience conversations and feedback around a program will shape production processes, opening up for example opportunities to change storylines or influence character development from week to week. The opportunity to present out-takes or alternative camera angles to consumers on companion screens will add another dimension to the user experience.

However, as creative complexity increases, so inevitably will costs. Production costs will rise as the complexity of the process increases. Distribution costs will also increase as output formats proliferate to match the wide variety of device specifications that will appear from manufacturers. Online video distributors today have to create 30+ versions of content to satisfy consumers using different Set Top Boxes, PC’s and a small number of mobile phones. Expect this variability to rise by at least an order of magnitude as new connected TV boxes and companion devices come to market.

Most significantly, increased choice will fragment audiences further, reducing revenues to individual broadcasters and program makers. Competition for the attention of the consumer will become increasingly fierce. In particular, the battle between platforms, broadcasters and third party apps providers to be on the default screen when the box is turned on will be intense.

Brands will become increasingly important as consumers start to explore this new world. Consumers will naturally migrate to the channels and franchises they are most familiar with, giving existing broadcasters and platforms a head start in this market. However, if a brand fails to adapt quickly to this new ecosystem and exploit its potential, consumers will very rapidly move on. The need to adapt quickly to rising costs, increasing competition and falling revenues will be the core challenge for the industry. Retaining the attention of the consumer is core to revenue generation. To do this in a connected TV world, broadcasters and program makers will need to look away from the traditional schedule and focus instead on understanding and responding to how consumers are interacting with content in all its dimensions – large screen, small screen and in conversation. That in turn will require a fundamental change in culture, processes, and behaviour.

I was astonished by the negative response of both markets and bloggers to the announcement of the Microsoft/Nokia tie up last week. The 15% fall in Nokia’s shareprice on Friday said more about the markets lack of understanding of Nokia’s position prior to the deal than it did about the prospects for the alliance. It has been obvious for months that Nokia has been in serious trouble, failing to respond effectively to the dual threats to its business. At the high end, Apple and Android have been undermining its high margin smartphone business, capturing significant market share. At the same time, Chinese manufacturers are eating Nokia’s lunch in core low price, high volume markets including China and India. The net result of those threats is that its market share is in freefall, down from a high of 38% to 31% in the last quarter. As market share falls, Nokia’s ability to leverage scale economics, central to its market dominance, is undermined.

Every since Stephen Elop took over Nokia last fall, it was clear that a close tie up with Microsoft was more likely than not in order to try and bring the company back from the brink. Windows Phone 7 may not impact directly Nokia’s volume business, but in providing a viable solution for business users as well as a highly acclaimed consumer proposition, it does give the company credible competitive weapons with which to fight back in those markets.

Microsoft too has a compelling requirement to do this deal. With the introduction of Windows 7, the UI and cross device integration upgrades to the Xbox, and porting of windows onto ARM to support the tablet market, the company has made major advances in the consumer market. However, with no effective mobile offering Microsoft was still devoid of competitive weapons with which to take on Google and Apple.

This is a merger that enhances the future prospects of both companies. Indeed it was the only step that makes sense.

Where does this leave others? Well Apple I am sure will barely raise an eyebrow to this development. The alliance is still two years away from being able to provide a product set that will be competitive to the integrated offerings of iTouch, iPhone, iPad, iMac, and Apple TV. The only issue holding Apple back now is the continued reluctance by content players, and in particular the major studios and broadcasters, to engage with Apple and allow it to offer both standard broadcast and paid TV offerings through iTunes/Apple TV. Ironically, this deal may benefit Apple as there may now emerge a credible competitor to its platform, giving content players at least two viable routes to online customers, hence increasing the chances of the studios doing business with Apple.

For the major OEM’s - Samsung, LG, Sony, et al – the problems have just increased by an order of magnitude. The value of being a “mobile only” or “TV only” provider will continue to diminish. As Apple – and increasingly Microsoft - has shown consumers want content and services available seamlessly across TV, mobile phone, PC and tablet – whatever combination of products they have. To deliver this, all of those devices need to work on a single, homogenous software platform.

The major OEMs are both culturally and structurally unsuited to respond to this fundamental need. Within each organisation, product teams compete to create different types of differentiated – and crucially incompatible – products. Software fragmentation as currently practiced by these players economically will not work. Major structural internal change is required to deliver this level of coherence. Without this they too will face Nokia’s dilemma within the next three years.

As for Google, they are now dependent on one of the major OEMs successfully making that change and choosing Android as the backbone of that strategy. That change needs to come about sooner rather than later as, unlike Microsoft, there will be no interest on Googles part – or more precisely on Google’s shareholders part - in bailing out an OEM on the slide and taking on the margins associated with manufacturing. Google’s strategy of piggybacking on an OEMs manufacturing business to grow an advertising model only works where you have successful and strong OEMs on which to piggyback. I can see this coming horribly unstuck at some point soon.In the meantime, expect the tie up between Nokia and Microsoft to get ever stronger. Microsoft needs Nokia’s distribution and mobile manufacturing expertise to complete its portfolio of business and home consumer products. Nokia needs not just Microsoft’s OS but also its Xbox customer base, its IPTV products, and its reach into the business community to re-invigorate its offering and be seen as a major competitor to Apple.

In short, the synergies between the two are so strong, that I cannot see the two companies existing as independent entities in three years time.

Impasse over online video standards is one piece of a bigger picture

Mashable recently produced an excellent commentary on the on-going battle over video codec support in HTML5 http://on.mash.to/dNezlE. A few days ago, Google quietly announced that it will stop supporting for the widely used H.264 codec schema (MPEG4 part 10) in HTML5 as implemented in Chrome.

Esoteric as this topic may sound for many, it’s a decision that sets Google on the path to war with Microsoft and Apple over the future of web video. HTML5 is widely seen as the software platform on which true service convergence across multiple device types from multiple manufacturers can be most easily and economically supported. Appropriately designed, it should be possible to use the same standards, code and content formats for an application delivered to phones, tablets, PCs and TVs from multiple manufacturers. Hence, in order to have a world where consumers can make separate choices over device supplier AND entertainment provider, it matters hugely who prevails in this debate.

Google’s stated reason for dropping H.264 is that it is a proprietary technology controlled by the MPEG LA, a firm that licences patents for a price. Its own alternative, WebM, is royalty free. On the face of it, Google’s decision to support the lower cost option would appear to be good news for content producers and distributors.

However, the broader context of this move warrants closer scrutiny. In addition to owning the organisation responsible for managing the development of WebM, Google has also recently acquired Widevine, widely regarded as one of the most appropriate and capable DRM systems for online video streaming. Hence, the company has control of two major pieces of technology that determine how web distributed video content is encoded and protected. Google also control Android, fast becoming the dominant OS in the smartphone market and about to break onto the connected TV scene with almost certainly similar impact.

As a result, Google is quickly piecing together control of all of the key software elements required to deliver a large scale video entertainment service on mobile phones, tablets, and, most importantly, the TV screen.

Should Android become the de facto software environment for devices within the connected home, the decisions Google makes regarding the future evolution of the platform, what technologies to support and what not to support, and how to monetise content on those platforms become key determinants of the future success of OEMs, broadcasters and studios alike.

How might Google use this position? A key question exercising the TV industry is how the advertising market will evolve in a connected TV environment. Apple’s iAd service demonstrates very effectively how content and advertising can be brought from two different places and integrated seamlessly on the device within an app. In the iAd case, advertising is delivered from Apple’s third party platform, independent of the content producer.

Extend this concept to the connected TV (or set top box) and this capability represents a major threat to broadcasters delivering content to any broadband connected device. Google will have the power to monetise a TV advertising opportunity completely independently of the broadcaster. Consider the following scenario: American broadcaster ABC seeks to deliver content to a Sony connected TV based on the Google TV software platform. The user selects the CBS player catch-up app. However, recognising what type of app it is, the device requests a 30 second pre-roll ad from AdMob (another Google company) and serves this to the screen before launching the ABC catch-up app.

Extend this process to the selection and play out of individual programs from individual broadcaster catch-up services, and the potential exists for either Google or some other third party who controls the device to create on the fly at the device a “channel” complete with adverts based on linear content made available via broadcaster catch-up services. What is more, this whole process can be done without the knowledge or consent of ABC.

There will of course be checks and balances that are likely to prevent a platform owner from completely eliminating a broadcaster from the revenue stream as we see with current platforms today. However, it is quite conceivable that as Google TV’s share of the connected TV market grows and as its dominance of the software used to create and deliver the user experience increases, so broadcasters and studios will be “encouraged” to adopt Google’s device based TV advertising platform to provide a better and more personalised advertising experience to users within their mainstream TV programming. This will be in return of course for 30% of TV advertising revenue. It is this prize – a significant piece of the TV advertising market - that Google is ultimately seeking. At present, Zenith Optimedia estimate that the global TV advertising market is worth USD 180bn out of a total USD 443bn. This compares to an internet ad market of USD 70bn. Today’s battles between Holywood studios and companies such as Apple and Netflix over control of online and mobile video distribution are only a precursor to the battle for the bigger prize. As I’ve said previously, control over content rights and over the user’s device itself will be key. The recent purchase of NBC Universal by Comcast is just the start.

Welcome to a new blog on the changes in mobile, media and the services and devices that are defining the converging worlds of telecoms and media.

For over twenty years, I have been fascinated by the power of technology - and in particular mobile technology - to enhance and influence the lives of businesses and individuals. I’ve been fortunate to be party to and have a impact on many ground breaking events and projects - from Orion, the worlds first private satellite venture, and Microtel, the UK DCS1800 licencee that eventually became Orange, to supporting 3G licence deployment and the development of 3D graphics for mobile phones.

Over that period, it was clear from an early stage that the personal nature of the mobile device, sustained and supported by dramatic advances in silicon technology and power consumption would see the mobile phone become the ubiquitous, central support of life in the information society that we see today. The potential for the device to inform, entertain and support levels of communications that humanity desires reached a defining point with the launch of the Apple iPhone in 2007. For the first time, the world saw in a single device, a truly accessible, high performance mobile internet experience that does justice to the connectivity infrastructure operators have spent two decades and billions of dollars installing worldwide.

What is even more significant, however, is the change the iPhone paradigm is enabling both within the mobile phone industry and, increasingly, in the wider media world. With the introduction of the iPad, the tablet has been established as a mass market device for both consumers and businesses. Within twelve months, this new form factor has already changed consumption behaviour and is now influencing business process design.

2011 will be the year of the internet connected TV. With broadband connectivity capable to delivering broadcast TV now reaching critical mass in many countries, and the service widget access paradigm showing the manner in which to provide the mass market with intuitive access to the services and content they seek, broadcasters and device manufacturers are poised to initiate the biggest change in the nature of TV based entertainment in fifty years of broadcasting.

Regardless of how successful initial propositions from Sony, Google, Samsung, Netflix etc are, telecoms and media convergence has truly arrived. The relationships between players in the value chain and between industry participants and consumers will never be the same again.

With humility, I am pleased to note that I have been among the first to observe many of the changes we have seen in the industry leading up to this point. Over the coming months and years, I hope to share my observations on this ever evolving market, and the implications for the players in that market through this site and through twitter at @caruventures.

Author

Mike Grant has a long track record of successfully predicting major industry change. He identified the rise of the mobile as a personal entertainment device 5 years before the smartphone and 10 years before the iPhone, He anticipated the growth of Apple as a major power in mobile early in 1997, and the merger of Nokia and Microsoft two years in advance of the transaction. Follow Mike on Twitter @caruventures to receive this blog.